Related

Comments

The ‘it was only the Ice Storm’ farrago is clearly a pre-emptive strategy to enable dismissal of the imminent new record sea-ice low.

The Wattsian hardcore and devout acolytes of the Sticky Bishop may well manage to whip themselves into a fervour over this, but it really only serves to both restrict and define the event horizon of Epistemic Closure.

As their bubble seals-off forever we see a pitiable gaggle of strident and self-deluding numpties lost beyond the reach of mere evidence and reason on the inside, with the rest of us stuck looking on in wonder that they were ever listened to in the first place and wondering what the hell to do about the mess they’ve left behind…

I haven’t predicted a minimum this year in any of the sea ice extent polls that various blogs are running, but I did predict (on day two of the storm, at Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice Blog) that the “reality reluctant” would use this storm as a get-out-of-jail-free card to handwave away a new record low area. Could have knocked me down with a feather when the obviously-insane (thanks for the correction) Karen made such a predictable ploy. Watts and the Bishop beaters do the same? Colour me unsurprised…

In fact a new record was virtually guaranteed long before the storm coalesced, only needing 2012’s relatively uneventful but brutally warm conditions to continue – exactly the sort of in situ melting that Karens video link showed. Different groups measure ice at different concentrations, and while the storm caused some of those datasets to nosedive, for others (like the University of Illinois’ Cryosphere Today), the trajectory barely changed at all.

2007 set a record in part because of persistant wind patterns that pushed a lot of ice out of the Arctic to melt in the North Atlantic. We saw no exceptional conditions this year, yet we are almost certain to smash 2007, such is the shitty state of what is left of the Arctic ice cap.

98 percent of the world was cool? Beyond the warmth in the USA, NOAA also said that this is the the 11th warmest year globally so far at 0.52 degrees Celsius above the 20th century average. Not sure how being above normal translates into cool.
I’ll post this link again.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/6

Your link also reports the NOAA says it was (globally) the 4th warmest June since records began in 1880.

Muller seems to be trying to deceive on that point – or incompetent. Or perhaps Muller was using a post-normal relativistic definition of “cool” approved by denialists, that being cool = “not quite as warm as that place that’s really really hot right now”. (Which tends to suggest “trying to deceive”…)

Muller, the BisHillers, the WWWTians, et al are all evidence in their own ways that one can lead the herd of asses to water, but one cannot make them drink, no matter how withered is their collective grasps on reason.

At this point, I think my prediction that this year’s minimum would be close to, but wouldn’t break, the record will turn out wrong. I expect we’ll set a new record low for sea ice extent, area, and volume.

If you believe that we can do this to the earth and not have consequences, you’re a fool.

So there we have it KrakenMackDuffSpot fools all as are the cheerleaders at WUWT and Cardinal Puff. On which Tamino rounds out his article with this:

I can’t help but wonder how Anthony Watts and other fake skeptics will spin this. I can’t wait to see his next “Sea Ice Update.” I wonder what WUWT reader “Smokey” will have to say.

Indeed. interesting times ahead but I doubt any of us will be cheering as Watts sinks in his own hubris for we all will have more important concerns on our minds. The roller coaster of climate and weather is about to get very hairy indeed for ‘we ain’t seen nothing yet’.

Does anyone know how to get the rest of this into print? Listening and typing is hard for me.

“But I do believe it’s important to keep some distance between the science and policy advice if you like because while certain types of damaging weather events may be getting more likely as a result of global warming other types of extreme weather events may be becoming less likely so it’s important not to jump to the conclusion that just because something’s changing it’s automatically bad.”

Posted this on Neven’s excellent today. No problem with instant response. So I thought I’d try a couple more. Tamino allowed it. Revkin’s dot earth blog seemed to take it but I can’t find it. Joe Romm’s Climate Progress hasn’t let it through moderation but later one’s have been passed.

I seem to recall that at 4:17 pm on 13 June I asked USKMS to give his best estimates for the 2012 minimum Arctic ice parameters, and that FrankD pre-empted even my questioning.

I also have this nagging doubt that anything resembling a sensible reply was provided, but perhaps now the Scandinavian Troll Collective, USKMS, Betulant, Duff, and sundry other denialati might like to consider offering an eleventh hour estimate, supported with testable reasoning …

Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune Released the Following Statement in Response:

“There is a reason big polluters have given Paul Ryan hundreds of thousands of dollars and why the Koch Brothers are one of his top donors – he’s tried to turn their wildest fantasies into law. From rejecting the reality of climate disruption to attacking good-paying clean energy jobs to trying to gut the EPA’s ability to protect our air, our water, and the health of our families, Ryan operates out of the dirty energy playbook.

Big polluters have been financing Mitt Romney’s campaign, calling the shots on his energy policy, and even serving as his debate surrogates. Of course, Mitt Romney could not add a Big Oil or Big Coal executive to his ticket, but by picking Paul Ryan, he’s done the next closest thing.”

Sunspot in his guise as Karen is still burning rubber on the line where he started years ago. Some people just can’t learn.

Heads up Spotty, even the Koch-sponsored denialist Muller concedes that the concensus science is bang on the money. Warming is happening, and it’s us. Saying otherwise only serves to cement your reputation for utter stupidity.

The warming was supposed to be the greatest at the pole”S” wasn’t it ?

Apart from the fact that the north and south poles are expected to respond quite differently to increased CO2 forcing initially, at least for a number of decades, for reasons far more complex than you appear to be capable of grasping…

…your graph does not even show temperature, therefore it can’t demonstrate whether it is or is not warming as expected.

…your graph does not even show temperature, therefore it can’t demonstrate whether it is or is not warming as expected.

Kraken is intellectually or morally bankrupt, probably both as the first can lead to the second.

When spouting about, or ignoring temperatures, it (Kraken and ilk) has no clue about the concepts of heat capacity and latent heat.

Here Kraken, given that a one degree rise in temperature of one gram of pure water at ISA conditions, is the result of the input of one calory of heat energy how much heat energy, in calories, is required to change one gram of ice at freezing point into water?

Similarly how much heat energy is required to turn one gram of pure water into one gram of vapour?

A man walks 5 miles due South, turns and walks 5 miles due East, turns again and walks 5 miles due North arriving back at the place where he started. What colour was the bear that he spied on the way?

Indeed, increased energy in the atmosphere means that the circumpolar westerlies, which only occur in Antarctica, are expected to increase in speed. This further isolates Antarctica from the rest of the planet and a local decrease in temperatures in the Arntarctic interior might be expected.

The increased winds are also expected to spread out sea ice more widely, thus contributing to a temporary increase sea ice extent.

Meanwhile, warmer water underneath glacier tongues and ice shelves is increasing the rate of iceberg calving, which would also contribute to increased sea ice extent (at the expense of mass loss from the Antarctic icecap).

Even if Arctic and Antarctic Sea ice were related (ie that SH ice gain counterbalances NH ice loss), Karen neglects to note the order of magnitude of that scale. A 1% per decade increase of Antarctic Sea Ice cannot counterbalance a 10% per decade loss of Arctic Sea Ice.

And even if all those things were set aside, how can the environmental impact of ice free conditions in the Arctic Ocean, which will happen on a years to decades timescale, be balanced out by ANY amount of sea ice gain in Antarctica.

We don’t need to worry about droughts here, because we are getting floods there is “logical” only to the insane…

And speaking earlier of Charles Pierce’s blog, he has a daily (US) drought report post (e.g. this) during the week discussing the Great Climate Change Hoax invented by Lamborghini-driving scientists of various descriptions and its relation to various concerning observations. (Snark alert!)

In addition John H. Richardson has been guest posting a series about Keystone XL (e.g. part 3):

Disaster is our only hope for a cool planet, says [former President of Shell Oil] John Hofmeister.

He also wants to rebrand “global warming” and “…get more practical and talk about waste management…” (via some sort of powerful fairly independent regulatory agency) in order to “…provide for a sustainable planet”.

On a side note, if anyone is further interested in the current media fluffing of the aforementioned US Republican VP candidate Paul Ryan, Charles Pierce is currently pointing out a few things that don’t mesh with the carefully constructed media narrative – or Ryan’s own political positions. (And peruse the blog for even more…)

What is it with deniers and their inability to understand the simplest aspects of thermodynamics? Anyone who thinks Karen has raised any sort of point should consider the meaning of the terms “latent heat” and “sensible heat”.

Here’s the Cliff notes – As long as there is ice to melt at 80N even at summer minimum, the temperature there cannot rise substantially above freezing. That is a fundamental principle of thermodynamics, and Karens failure to understand it shows the towering heights of ignorance.

Once the ice around 80N is gone – which is likely within the next few years, summer temps at that location will be unconstrained by latent heat issues.

And as Wow mentions – the winter temperature – well above average – is more revealing. Unlike Karen, that’s all sensible.

Most revealing is Karen’s continued (insane) belief that she can disprove AGW by talking about the Arctic.

Here is the “basic” explanation from SKS for Karen who as others have noted continues to score own goals.

“If we look at the entire official daily DMI data set, we can quickly see that the Summer temperatures do not vary much over the entire record but the Winter temperatures have significantly increased…”

“As each summer advances, the ice surface temperature rises, until the melting point of ice is reached. At this point any further thermal energy is used to melt the ice, and the surface temperature (and the air just above it) can not increase while any significant amount of ice remains. At present there are still significant amounts of sea ice above 80 degrees North through the Summer melt season.”http://www.skepticalscience.com/DMI-cooling-Arctic-basic.htm

And this is from the front page of the DMI web site that Karen linked to.
“Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable. “

Readers of Merchants of Doubt or Robert Proctor’s Golden Holocaust have learned about some the weird connections between tobacco and climate anti-science, but they just scratched the surface. I was up at UC San Francisco last month (home if the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library) to give a tobacco/climate talk and got to compare notes with some if their researchers.

Why not have a look around and see what else kills people and ban those things as well, eg doctors, pharmaceuticals (they kill more people than illicit drugs) , breast X rays, cars, the armed forces, cops, some scientists,
ticks, mosquitoes, GMO’s, sunscreen, fluoride, religion, USA, ect……………..

What happened to freedom of choice ?

Why are dangerous chemicals added to tobacco ? And why is it that these chemicals are not banned ?

Trying to connect the tobacco industry and climate science skepticism is a specious argument, trying to connect the two demonstrates that the CO2 hypothesis is extremely week.

Another ECF (Epic Comprehension Fail) from Karen et al. followed by an epically misguided detour based on the faulty premises derived from miscomprehension.

Trying to connect the tobacco industry and climate science skepticism is a specious argument…

More epic. Denying the well-established connections doesn’t make them go away.

…trying to connect the two demonstrates that the CO2 hypothesis is extremely week.

There is no universe in which this “logic” holds, even allowing for spelling corrections. Methinks you need to look at your own arguments to find the weakness – but history demonstrates that you won’t.

‘Karen’, your arguments are so ‘week’ they’re virtually ‘month’, and ‘your’ the fool for being unaware of the well-established links / overlapping of the various facets of science denial. Tobacco lies at its core, and we use the word advisedly.

Seriously, anybody reading this who’s on the same side as this sub-literate serial buffoon – don’t you feel degraded?

PS: ‘ect……’ you should probably receive some! 😉 And by all means, smoke – but take out private health cover first, eh? We wouldn’t want the Gubmint to be forking-out for the consequences of your chosen ‘liberties’, would we?…

Also, John M – a quick visit to John Q’s gives a bit more background on the court case – and the fact that the Legalised Drug Industry has already embarked on another court action, with the help of some compliant small nations and our friends at the WTO.

I don’t think there has been a study into effects of naturally grown tobacco vs chemically modified tobacco ?

I believe it’s all grown naturally. There have been studies on the health consequences of the various methods of curing the tobacco. (Hint: tobacco is always bad for your health)
I’m sure a genius like you could find these studies without our help. And besides, I’m too busy working towards world domination.

You obviously know nothing about tobacco to think that it is grown naturally, I suppose that you also think that GM corn is natural and Mc Donalds fry’s are healthy because they are made from potatoe’s.

How old are you zoot ? You seem very naive and may learn something from that link.

According to Ms Oreske we are all just chain-smoking denialists who should know better.and then with some brilliant,deductive,insightful thinking the stupid cow provides us with the climate science spectre of the atmosphere huffing away on smokestack fags.
According to Slothy 11.46am there’s “well established connections” Yeah but your synaptic connections are not so hot eh Slothy.

Let’s take some of the popular stories on naturalnews:
On number 1, and by a fair margin “Colorado Batman shooting shows obvious signs of being staged”.
Yup, it really says what the title says.

Number 2, trailing significantly behind number 1, but still: “Obama seizes control over all food, farms, livestock, farm equipment, fertilizer and food production across America”
Waaaaaaaaa! Waaaaaaaaa! Put on your aluminum hats now! The government is coming!

Also quite popular: “Vaccines have been based on medical fraud for over a hundred years”.
and another story on vaccine and supposed links to autism.

Karen really knows how to pick her supporting evidence: yet another conspiracy nutwebsite!

bill, thanks for the reminder to visit JQ.
As noted in Fake science,…, Appendices F and G, there is lots of documentation of the climate/tobacco connection.

More importantly, p.38, 30 years ago, the typical starting age for smoking was 15-16. By now, it’s down to 13-14. Very few people start after 18, and if they do, they find it much easier to stop. Setting nicotine addiction properly requires it to happen while brains are developing.

Cigarette company business model =
a) Addict children by 18
b) Kill them as slowly as possible.

As usual, I strongly recommend Bob Proctor’s book, Golden Holocaust … The cigarette companies hate this book so much they try to stop its name from even being mentioned in court.

I don’t do Kindle, I fear for when we no longer have a choice on this. But I suppose how many dead trees am I consuming with my library. The way I look at it this is a carbon store. Maybe I am wrong about that, maybe the ‘KarenMackSpotBetDuff’ club can help here. 😉

Lionel: yes, it’s expensive, but it is long, with huge amount of information and I’m not really sure how well it work on Kindle.
First approach would be to see if accessible library has one or can be urged to get one. Taht’s probably good enouhg unless one is actively researching this turf, i.e., my copy has dozens of stickies and many highlights.

No, “Mack” – ‘paranoid ravings’ are what you and your fellow zoo inmates do – it being all you have. Dr. Oreskes on the other hand presents evidenced research, which is a concept you can’t seem to grasp nor dare to.

These mutts not only don’t have a counter argument beyond ‘it’s not truuuueee!’ but ‘both’ ‘Karen’ and ‘Mack’ are both inadvertently proving the point by spouting the tobaccos arm of science denial’s very own memes and rationalizations.

The reason why you’re vacantly mouthing this is the same reason the ventriloquists with their hands up your backsides do. Tobacco realised that it had lost the debate to science, and so it set out to discredit the scientific method itself. I’m no great believer in ‘evil’ as a phenomenon, but this is as close to it as you’re ever likely to get.

They also found an audience of far-too-many self-deluding rubes only-too-willing to slowly kill themselves – and others – for the sake of the corporate bottom-line. Just like climate science denial. Can’t win the science debate? Attack science itself! And get a pack of jackasses to bray along with you…

(This you dignify as ‘liberty’?! Phhhhttt!)

And ‘Natural News’? Where the venal Hippoisie meets the bug-eyed Tin-Foil-Hatters? Give me a break…

Also, for a broad overview of the science denial industry – there is one – and it’s too-many successes, you can’t go past David Michaels’ ‘Doubt is Their Product.’ He’s a former Clinton-era DoE Assistant Secretary and is currently an Assistant Secretary for Labor in the OSHA.

My hard-copy of his book has several dings in it from being hurled across the room in disgust. It’s almost as infuriating as Bolt’s blog. This is not Michaels’ fault: he’s just telling an awful tale no-one should have to hear…

For mine, you missed the best of the frootloopery Karen linked to: “Fukushima reactor No. 4 vulnerable to catastrophic collapse; could unleash 85 times Cesium-137 radiation of Chernobyl; human civilization on the brink”

Human civilisation on the brink? Why, anyone would think Karen was going all alarmist on us… 😉

He’s rambling about the Gubmint bringing about ‘weather-radicalization’ and ‘chem-trails’ and ‘ionization’ being responsible for the US’ extreme weather. Certainly not AGW. Oh, and he’s not impressed by Al Gore. Methinks this guy’s position is absolutely invulnerable to satire.

(And please do note the absolutely extraordinary graphic he chooses to stand in front of!)

And if you check out the link our ‘learned’ friend provided, you’ll see several more examples of the explicit link between this hippie/alternative/new age conspiracy-peddling and the nominally ‘conservative’ Tea-Partyite conspiracy-nuttery of Alex Jones.

In the main far-Rightist hippies appears to have been chiefly a US phenomenon, though I suppose we have to consider David Icke!

“Flying around a world battered by rapid climate change and struggling with economic collapse in a hi-tech airship, Lemmy encounters the remnants of our civilisation – the artificial intelligences searching for the singularity, a rocking bishop in his flying cathedral, the last climate sceptics, the technovegans and deep green terrorists, billionaire libertarians in their bubble, and much, much more. Not to mention the goats, the girlfriend with bots in her head and the elixir of life (which is cheese).

“Part dystopian tome a la ‘Mad Max’ meets ‘Waterworld’, part stinging indictment of the mendacious ongoing campaign to deny the threats of human-caused climate change, The Aviator delivers a winning combination of wit and insight as it depicts the perils we may bestow upon future generations if we choose not to act on the greatest threat human civilization has ever faced.”

No wonder you are so twisted bill 🙂

You should submit that to the IPCC, I’m sure that they would like to use it in their next CO2 canard.

It’s called a ‘novel’, ‘Karen’. I know you find it hard to distinguish between stories and real life – not to mention between blog drivel and scientific papers – but for some of us they’re considered a pleasure.

I asked a psychologist friend of mine to spend a few minutes to read your posts, to see what he thought about your state of mind. I won’t bother with the rather colourful commentary, but others reading this thread might be unsurprised to hear that he estimated your IQ to lie somewhere between 85 and 95, and likely not much over 90 at best.

Cubital tunnel – ouch, been there and carpal tunnel too (all those screws on Phantom F4k panels with one outer wing panel having 948 screws with each aircraft having two such panels one to port and another to starboard).

*he estimated your [Karen, Mack et al] IQ to lie somewhere between 85 and 95, and likely not much over 90 at best.*

That high? For these twits that’s Mensa level… My estimation is that their arguments are generally at kindergarten level. I browse here now and again these days and frankly I can’t understand why these clowns persist. This summer has been intellectually devastating to the climate change deniers at it so happens anyway, what with events unfolding in North American and the Arctic. As their arguments continue to melt, their voices become increasingly shrill.

I have just returned here after reading through that Desmog article to give others the heads up. No need as I see. I have downloaded the PDF (something of a collection building here) to study – take some time that will.

Well done for all that work.

However, I feel powerless despite having all this info by not being in the US. Although I could probably do an Assange and get extradited extraordinarily rendered, and I used to think that had something to do with meat processing (well I suppose it does in a macabre way).

It is clear that across the world democracy, or what passes for democracy and Noam Chomsky can put people straight on that score, also John Pilger, is under attack from all quarters.